The trial Court also found that there was no need for such Channel as there was no connecting Channel on the North beyond the property in S.No.211 /3. The trial Court further found that the land situated in S.No.211 /3 belongs to the 1st defendant and Sadhasivam. Sadhasivam being not made a party to the suit, a decree for mandatory injunction cannot be granted. On the above finding, the learned trial Judge dismissed the suit. Aggrieved, the plaintiff preferred an appeal in A.S.No.21 of 2011. The lower appellate Court, on a reconsideration of the evidence on record, disagreed with the trial Court. The lower appellate Court found that there had been some corrections in the Sale Deed namely Ex.A1 in S.Nos.211 /3 and 211/4, which were typed in Ex.A1 and they were removed by applying whitener. The lower appellate Court therefore found that Ex.A1 in fact referred to the existence of the Channel in S.No.211 /3 and 211/4. On the said finding, the lower appellate Court found that the case of the plaintiff that the Channel was obliterated, was probable. On the above conclusion, the lower appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree of the trial Court and decreed the suit. Aggrieved, the defendants have come by way of this Second Appeal.
